February 20, 2015

The Greater Offense

Sometimes I find if difficult to understand why Sean Hannity (@seanhannity) has a radio show. So often when I tune in to his show on the drive home I hear him interviewing some guest brought on to give the opposing view and he misses the obvious question. He keeps repeating the same things over an over and never seems to follow up with a question based on what the guest has said.

Today, for instance, he had a spokesperson for an Islamic organization on to discuss the problem of radical Islamic terrorism. Specifically he was badgering the guest about which specific verses in the Koran justify violence and killing infidels.

This spokesperson - I missed his introduction so I don't have his name - insisted that violence, terrorism and the killing of infidels is actually against the teachings of the Koran and Mohammed.

What Hannity should have asked, and didn't was something like:

When a Danish newspaper published cartoons of Mohammed, angry and offended Muslims around the world marched in protest.

When a group of Muslims killed 3,000 people in New York in the name of Mohammed there were no marches. When a group of Muslims burned a Jordanian pilot alive on video, there were no marches. A group of Muslims beheaded 21 Christians in the name of Allah and there will be no marches.

What is the greater offense to Islam and the Prophet: violence and terrorism, that you say are against the teachings of Islam, done in the name of Mohammed or drawing a cartoon?

If you want to paint your opposition guest into a corner this is how you do it. He cannot answer that the cartoon is the greater offense because that invalidates his message or calls killing in the name of the Prophet a lesser evil than drawing a cartoon. Hardly a reasonable position. He cannot answer that the violence is the greater offense to the Prophet, because there is ample evidence proving otherwise.

February 18, 2015

"We cannot kill our way out of this war. We need in the medium to longer term to go after the root causes that leads people to join these groups, whether it’s a lack of opportunity for jobs."

"We’re not going to be able to stop that in our lifetime or 50 lifetimes,” Matthews interrupted. "There’s always going to be poor people. There’s always going to be poor Muslims, and as long as there are poor Muslims, the trumpet’s blowing and they’ll join. We can’t stop that, can we?”

In return, Harf suggested a soft power-like approach: "We can work with countries around the world to help improve their governance,” she said. "We can help them build their economies so they can have job opportunities for these people."

I would say that this nonsense falls under the category of wishful thinking, but I can't really imagine that any thought went into it at all.

Consider this statement: "We can work with countries around the world to help improve their governance." Will we convince them to respect individual rights like freedom of speech and religion? Will we talk them into acknowledging those rights for women? They are talking about countries where the basic principles of governance are set down in the words of their prophet. How are we going to help them improve on the word of their god?

Then there is this bold statement: "We can help them build their economies so they can have job opportunities for these people." They can't even do that here in a first-world semi-free republic. What makes them think they can do it in a religiously authoritarian underdeveloped nation?

February 13, 2015

Go Ahead And Try

The FCC and the FEC are making moves to regulate and control the internet. They are doing this because this is what the fascist in the Oval Office wants. And if you think they are not going to try to regulate content, you are a delusional idiot.

The bottom line is I don't give a rat's ass what they try to do.

I WILL NOT OBEY.

Not only will I not obey, but this dusty barely used blog will come back to life.

December 17, 2014

Obamacare is hurting doctors. I can say this with absolute certainty because my story is not unique.

We used to have a really great medical benefit through my employer. It wasn't really insurance in the traditional sense of a hedge against disaster, it was a medical or healthcare benefit.

A couple of times a year one of the kids would develop a sore throat, runny nose and maybe a slight fever. We would bundle them up and bring them to the see the doctor. They would get a basic exam and most likely a throat culture to rule out strep throat. We'd make our $20 co-pay and be on our way. The rest of the $200+ cost of the visit was paid for by the medical plan. The next day we'd get a call from the doctor's office telling us that the throat culture was negative and the kid has a cold and will get over it in a few days. We paid $20 for that peace of mind and the doctor collected $200+.

The new benefit plan thanks to the federal government comes with a $4,000 deductible - and a nice premium increase. Now if one of the kids complains of a sore throat and runny nose we look at them with kindness and compassion and say, "You've got a cold. Take this. You'll get over it in a few days." No trip to the doctor. No $20 copay. No reimbursement from the insurance company. The doctor loses.

The insurance company collects the increased premium and pays out nothing.

November 22, 2014

Imagine for a moment that in 2016 we elect a strongly free market libertarian as president and this person takes office with all of the tools and powers used by Obama. What could this president do?

Let's start this thought experiment with health care.

The first thing to do is employ the Obama non-enforcement rules and issue an executive order instructing the Internal Revenue Service to not spend any resources enforcing the penalties for the individual or employer insurance mandates. This would probably bring the whole fascistic enterprise to it's knees, but it's not enough.

Our president would also have to employ the Obama non-defense strategy a la the Defense of Marriage Act. You may recall that the Obama administration did not support the Clinton administration's law and decided that it would not defend it in court. The new president should instruct their new Attorney General to not even show up in court for hearings on the ACA.

That pretty much does it for health care. There may be a few peripheral federal regulations lingering and the president could decide to either wipe those out by non-enforcement or let the courts eliminate them.

This two pronged Obama approach can be taken in any number of areas to great effect.

If our libertarian president wanted to eliminate the federal Department of Education and return control of education to state and local government where it belongs it could be done the same way. A few executive orders to neuter No Child Left Behind and the god-awful school lunch rules, and non defense of any legal action against Common Core etc.

Federal employee unions would be toast. Implement by executive order the reforms Scott Walker put in place legislatively in Wisconsin and they're done.

Want to force some serious congressional action on tax reform? Use an executive order to end payroll withholding for federal income taxes. Once people have to start writing checks to the treasury public support for limited government would be off the charts.

Then start in on the EPA, the DOE the DOD the DEA, ATF, SSI, HHS anything the president doesn't like the president can kill with Non Enforcement and No Defense.

Our libertarian president could even bring back toilets that flush effectively, decent showers and the incandescent light bulb.

November 19, 2014

The Democrat Party has for all intents and purposes conceded that incumbent Senator Mary Landrieu will loose the upcoming run-off election in Louisiana.

The Senate held a vote on a bill to authorize construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline that was put forward by Landrieu in a somewhat transparently desperate attempt to appear pro energy to voters.

The bill, which would have been vetoed by the president anyway, was defeated by a vote of 59 - 41 failing to clear the 60 vote cloture hurdle.

The failure means that Landrieu can't even go back to her home state and blame the result on the GOP. All 45 Republicans in the current Senate voted for the bill. The bill was defeated by her party.

Make no mistake about it, if the party leadership and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid wanted the bill to pass the final tally would have been 61 - 39. The political calculation was that Landrieu is going to lose and it's not worth upsetting environmental special interest supporters to try to save her.

Landrieu has been thrown under the bus. 41 of her fellow Democrats were comfortably seated passengers.

November 17, 2014

Democrat Senator Al Franken attempting to make the case in favor of Obama's Net Neutrality initiative did a pretty good job of explaining the precise problem with Net Neutrality:

This would keep things exactly the same that they've been.

Innovation killing regulation designed to protect the interest of the content providers that use the largest percentage of internet bandwidth. Content providers who reliably contribute to progressive causes. Content providers who don't want to pay for the bandwidth their product requires.

The biggest beneficiaries of Net Neutrality will be Google and Netflix.

November 15, 2014

And the Lies Continue

Presidential spokesman Josh Earnest (Did the pick him for the name?) was questioned recently about the video showing ObamaCare architect Jonathan Gruber stating that the stupidity of the American voter was essential to getting the law passed.

During a press briefing held in Myanmar Thursday, Henry immediately questioned Earnest on comments made by Jonathan Gruber, the Obamacare consultant who suggested that the "stupidity of the American voter” contributed to the passing of the bill.

"[Gruber] went on to say, quote, ‘A lack of transparency was a huge political advantage for the President,’ in terms of selling it to the American people,” Henry said. "I thought it was just the opposite. Didn’t the President promise unprecedented transparency. Why would one of the architects of the law suggest that you were misleading people?”

"Well, again, it sounds like you may have watched the video a few more times than I have,” Earnest replied, adding that he wasn’t "going to quibble with what he actually said.”

Henry then asked if the White House felt "bad” about Gruber’s comments.

"I disagree vigorously with that assessment, I think is what I would say.I think the fact of the matter is this is a — this was a very difficult undertaking, but ultimately this is a law that has had significant benefits for millions of people that have been able to sign up through the marketplaces established by the Affordable Care Act,” Earnest replied.

Again, as with so much of what this administration says, I call bullshit.

Let's take a closer look at what Earnest had to say.

First he replied that he wasn't "going to quibble with what he actually said." That's fine Josh. No one was asking you to to. It's on video. It's clear as a bell. There is no debate about what he said.

Then he said that he disagreed vigorously with Gruber's assessment that lack of transparency was an asset. So Earnest is telling us there was transparency in the process? Transparency in a complex 3,000 page bill that was not even read by the Democrats who voted for it using every parliamentary procedural trick they could think of to get it passed? They're calling that transparency? It's almost like they think we're stupid.

Just after crediting the stupidity of the American voter for helping to pass the Affordable Care Act, Gruber explains transparency would have been nice but in the end he would rather have the law passed than not.

The ends justified the means.

Speaking on behalf of President Obama, Earnest said:

This was a very difficult undertaking, but ultimately this is a law that has had significant benefits for millions of people that have been able to sign up through the marketplaces established by the Affordable Care Act.

In other words, the ends justified the means he vigorously denies they used.

November 13, 2014

It Never Ends

You are aware aren't you that the Mid-Term Congressional Election is not over yet? There is still the matter of the run-off election in Louisiana between Democrat incumbent Mary Landrieu and Republican challenger Bill Cassidy. Conventional wisdom is that Cassidy is likely to win.

One campaign strategy in support of Landrieu is that Harry Reid is going to finally hold a vote in the Senate on legislation authorizing the Keystone Pipeline. Every current Senate Republican is likely to vote in favor and Harry will no doubt give permission for Landrieu and a few others to vote in favor so it passes.

President Obama has already signaled that he will veto the legislation because he sees this as Congress interfering with the State Department's infinite review process that has enabled him to avoid making a decision on the project for years.

I find it extremely unlikely that Harry Reid will bring up a vote to override the veto, let alone give any Senate Democrats permission to vote to override.

The whole purpose of this sham is to convince voters in Louisiana that Landrieu is pro-energy and willing to go against environmentalist special interests and her party's leadership to do what is right for her constituents.

But it's all bullshit.

They are doing this knowing that it will be vetoed by President Obama. They are doing this knowing that the Senate will not be challenging that veto. They are doing this knowing that it is meaningless. They are doing this to try to fool the voters in Louisiana who they think are too stupid to know better.

November 12, 2014

No Denying It

MIT Economics Professor and ObamaCare architect Jonathan Gruber went to the friendly socialist studios of MSNBC to attempt a little damage control.

"The comments in the video were made at an academic conference,” Gruber said on "Ronan Farrow Daily.” "I was speaking off the cuff. I basically spoke inappropriately. I regret having made those comments.”

He regrets and feels in was inappropriate to publicly expose the lies used to pass the Affordable care Act. What he did not do, is to claim the statements he made were false.

The comments in the video were made at an academic conference

So what? Does this mean that nothing he said should be take seriously because it was just an academic conference?

I was speaking off the cuff.

Again, so what? It's not like he used a wrong word. The comments he is referring to were several connected sentences around a consistent and cohesive theme. How they wrote the ACA to dupe the Congressional Budget Office and the American people.

I basically spoke inappropriately.

Notice he does not say incorrectly, inaccurately or mistakenly. The inappropriateness of his comments was that they exposed the more of the lies of ObamaCare. I'm sure the administration feels he spoke inappropriately too.

I regret having made those comments.

I'm sure he does. These may be the most honest words of his non-denial.

An Obama Administration consultant and one of the people who helped craft the Affordable Care Act has been shown on video tape saying that the Individual Mandate was deliberately written so that the Congressional Budget Office would not count it as a tax. Because if it was a tax it wouldn't be passed.

He also said the bill was written to disguise the fact that young healthy people will be forced to pay more for healthcare to subsidize others. He said they had to hide that fact because otherwise the bill could not have been passed.

He touted the lack of transparency as necessary and possible due to the stupidity of the American Voters.

We can add this to the lie about if you like your plan you can keep your plan; and the lie about keeping your doctor; and the lie about your costs going down; the lies about the number of people who actually bought insurance through the ACA; the dishonest, politically motivated, and unconstitutional rewriting of the law by the executive branch to push troublesome deadlines pas elections; the lie that ObamaCare would not add to the federal deficit.

This is what happens when the government is run by people who believe their ends justify any means. But when their end is the abrogation of individual liberty it justifies only their recent electoral failure.

November 05, 2014

The dust hasn't even begun to settle on the Republican rout of the Democrats and both Democrats and the Republican leadership are making noises about a new age of bipartisanship.

The most rigid ideologue of the bunch, Barack Obama, said "they want me to push hard to close some of these divisions, break through some of the gridlock, and just get stuff done.”

The presumptive new Senate Majority Leader and the outgoing leader who has been ruthlessly partisan are both talking about working together to get stuff done.

This, they say, is the message the American people sent with their votes in this election.

I cannot speak for the American people, only for one American, but I don't want the Democrats and the Republicans working together to "get stuff done." When the Democrats and Republicans cooperate to get stuff done the stuff is almost always taking away another chunk of our liberty.

If they want to cooperate in getting stuff undone, I'd be all for that. But since both parties are fundamentally interested in increasing the scope and power of the federal government, that's not going to happen.

So I'll settle for a couple of years of hardcore partisan squabbling as long as it results in no stuff getting done.

November 01, 2014

What Happened to Being Pro-Choice?

At a recent speech in Rhode Island President Obama confirmed the notion that the Left is all about people - particularly women - being free to choose. So long as they make a choice that the Left approves.

Sometimes, someone, usually mom, leaves the workplace to stay home with the kids, which then leaves her earning a lower wage for the rest of her life as a result. And that’s not a choice we want Americans to make.

If you have paid attention to Liberal/Progressive/Fascist thought, you know that it is only one small step from a choice they don't want you to make to a choice they won't allow you to make. (See healthcare.)

October 26, 2014

Thou Shalt Not Oppose Liberalism

It wasn't that long ago that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid brought to the Senate floor a proposed constitutional amendment that would decimate the First Amendment protection of free speech. The amendment, which failed to pass the Senate, would have given the federal government virtually unlimited authority to regulate political speech.

Why would either political party suggest that the government should regulate the political speech of citizens? The Democrats brought this forward confident that if it passed, they would be the ones doing the regulating. Unable to compete on a level playing field of ideas they would have the means to silence their opposition.

Democrats have not been deterred by the failure of their amendment. Vice Chair of the Federal Election Commission, Democrat Ann Ravel, has put forth a proposal that the FEC should regulate political content on the internet.

Under current FEC rules content posted for free on the internet, such as a You Tube video, a commentary on a news site, or perhaps even a political post to a blog are not regulated. Those posting them are not required to disclose who they are and do not have to report their financing to the FEC.

The problem Democrats have with this, is that it allows information to be spread that does not conform to their liberal orthodoxy. That, in their world view, cannot be allowed.

This latest attempted intrusion upon the rights and freedom of citizens cannot be tolerated and it must be stopped. When they proposed their freedom destroying amendment I formed a political action committee to stand against them. So far I am the only member but anyone is free to join.

October 23, 2014

Won't Be Going Back To School

Here's a reason to avoid having to visit my son's high school:

Visitors will be asked to provide a driver license for identification. The license will be scanned and checked against appropriate data bases. If the individual does not possess a driver license, a photo will be taken for the data base.

This does not give me a warm fuzzy feeling of security. This adds to the growing knot of dread.

"The choice for mankind lies between freedom and happiness and for the great bulk of mankind, happiness is better.”

October 18, 2014

A Vote for Nothing

I find myself having to something I didn't expect to be doing - writing a post urging people to vote for Republicans for Senate. I don't have any great fondness for the GOP. They are mostly another pack of self-serving statists. They are certainly not great defenders of liberty and in fact they are barely advocates for their alleged limited government principles. But they can be a useful tool to solve a problem.

The problem is insufficient gridlock in the federal government.

With the Republicans in control of the House and Democrats in control of the Senate there is gridlock in Congress but that is not enough. The President has demonstrated a willingness to rule by executive order regardless of Constitutionality. The congress is doing nothing about it because the Democrats in the Senate like what he is doing.

If the Republicans controlled the congress they could serve as a check on Obama's overreaching power grabs. I have no illusions that they would be doing this for any principled defense of liberty and the Constitution. They would stand in Obama's way strictly out of partisanship and that's fine with with me.

Stopping Obama is probably the best we can hope for in the mid-term. Once that's done we can start to focus on returning to liberty and Constitutional government.

September 18, 2014

The man currently working out of the oval office is a tyrant. He has no respect for the constitution he swore to uphold. He does believe in the concept of individual rights.

In a presidential proclamation marking Constitution Day - a day set aside to honor the ratification of the document that should form the basis for our government but no longer does - Obama wrote:

It secures the privileges we enjoy as citizens, but also demands participation, responsibility, and service to our country and to one another. (emphasis added.)

A right is yours. It is inherent in your being. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights it contains do not grant you rights, they protect your rights from infringement by the government.

A privilege is something granted to you, and having been granted can be taken away. That is why the tyrant in the White House refers to your rights as privileges. Because his goal, and the goal of both political parties in Washington, is to take those rights away. To exert power and control over everyone and everything.

Is there a chance this can be stopped by voting? I doubt it. There are too many people willing to hand over their rights in exchange for a taxpayer backed check.